 |
| Ken Ham, creationist, debated Bill Nye, atheist. |
I posted one article criticizing the approach Ken Ham took when debating Ken Ham. The theme seemed to be - Ham should have used better science. More representative of Evangelical-Pentecostals going mod,
Pat Roberts thinks Ken Ham is an embarrassment to modern Christians.
I can understand going over the arguments. Children are fascinated with such topics as dinosaurs. Most boys go through a dinosaur phase and perhaps a rock/fossil phase as well. Everyone is inundated with a stream of evolutionary arguments.
My mother was told, as a docent at the St. Louis Zoo, that nothing about Creation would be tolerated.
I grew up in a public school system where we sang Christmas songs (without scandal) and talked about evolution and Creation without polarization. Many of my teachers, like my mother, were also Sunday School teachers, not exactly enemies of the faith.
I listened to a few minutes of the Ham-Nye debate, which was widely promoted. I previously heard Ken Ham when he spoke in NW Arkansas, since he was here to raise funds for Noah's Ark. I had no argument with Ham's line of reasoning when he was talking. However, I am not keen on the customary ways of disproving evolution.
I question the merit of using human reason to argue with the rationalism of evolution. Although my objections were found irritating, they were supported by the reaction of atheists on the Internet. They were openly scornful of Ham and in awe of Nye, who was given a Humanist of the Year Award for his promotion of atheism.
First of all, I believe in the Creation of the universe by the Son of God, the Creating Word, as revealed in Genesis 1 and John 1. Nothing was created apart from Him. And this happened in six 24-hour days.
The Creation of the Bible is a mystery revealed by the Holy Spirit. Luther pointed out that church history shows all kinds of variations on Creation, as if it were a contest in writing fiction.
Today is no better. The "conservative" Lutherans pose as believers in Creation but they do not believe in the efficacy of the Word. Why else do they camp out at the conferences of gay activist Andy Stanley, Babtist Rick Warren, cussin' Mark Driscoll, and other assorted clowns?
Although Bill Nye is not really a scientist as most assume, he still has credentials in engineering and also as a corporate trainer. He is not a PhD in any field.
If I had to debate a scientist or engineer on this topic, I would not try to out-science him. Instead, I would ask the ultimate religious questions.
I found the key issue when working on my book about gardening with earthworms. As gardeners realize, there is a constant emphasis in those books on the purpose of the bee in pollination, the purpose of the ant in removing the dead from the surface, the purpose of nodules in legumes to fix nitrogen, and so forth.
Although the design argument is one that naturally follows from believing in Creation, the issue of purpose is a philosophical one that transcends the evolution argument. The scientist, writing about nature, said he could not address the issue of purpose, because it was essentially a religious question. Then I said, "Aha."
Composter realize the intricacy of purpose around us. Almost all plant and animal life on earth is sustained by the top 12 inches of soil. Trees also get much of their nutrition from this layer. So in this layer is an ocean of life, each creature depending on others, yet eating and being devoured by others. This intricacy extends to the exchange of ions, because organic soil releases ions more readily, leading to better and healthier plants.
Compost speeds up the normal, choreographed action of the top layer of soil. Nitrogenous matter heats up and breaks down. Molds attack cell structure. Creatures of rot attack the mold and eat each other: sowbugs, pill bugs, centipedes, millipedes, and earthworms. The final result is composted soil, bursting with life and ready to improve any soil type.
Not only is the purpose of each element and creature defined, but they all work together for one common purpose. Will this convince the atheist? I think not, but it does transcend the evolution argument.
I was handed a Creation book about dinosaurs, which ended, "Now that you know the truth about dinosaurs, it is time to make a decision for Christ. Let us pray the sinners prayer..."
I doubt whether dinosaurs can convert anyone. Instead, those who hear the Gospel and believe the message will realize also that the power to absolve is also the power to create - by the Word.
Evolutionists give away Creation from time to time, in their verbiage. One TV program described sharks as "a perfect designed killing machine that suddenly emerged...."
We often shouted "Another argument for evolution" when one of those ecstatic pronouncements was uttered with evolutionary piety on TV. One excludes the other, just as the term creature encapsulates the divine mystery of Creation.
